North Vancouver's own political BLOG dedicated to North Vancouver's political players and the decisions that shape our community.

Monday, September 12, 2011

A Question of Ethics for Municipal politicians

Even though Premier Christy Clark about faced and quashed the idea of an Autumn election, previously DNV Councillor Mike Little 'confirmed his interest' to run in North Van-Seymour and CNV Councillor Craig Keating was nominated for North Van-Lonsdale. Is it a question of ethics for municipal politicians to attempt to re-elect themselves when obviously they have designs on moving up the political ladder causing by-elections? Would it be the right ethical decision for Mr. Keating and Mr. Little not to run this November, allowing other candidates to vie for their seats, who on behalf of those voters who cast a ballot for them, do intend to complete their 3 year municipal terms?

Should John Sharpe have had to quit his job when he was considering running for a political position? His company was going to be forced to rehire and retrain people to replace him, perhaps John should be forced to pay for his replacement.

Craig and Mike have both served thier respective communities well and for a long time. Personally, I hope they both win and both bring their local expertise to the Provincial level (I would love to see them debating each other in the legislature).

John Sharpe quitting his job to run for politics would not have resulted in an expensive by-election. If Keating and Little do run, and one or both of them should pull a Jane Thornthwaite on us, we are stuck with the expensive costs of one or two by-elections. Politics is a selfish game, any way you look at it. I don't like seatwarmers on Council. Thro' tha bums out!

Besides, with a May 2013 election, Both Keating and Little could work both jobs through the summer and take a three month unpaid leave of absence starting in September. Then they wouldn't vacate their seats until the calendar year of a general election, which would mean no by-election.

Community saves ~$100k on a by election plus their respective salaries for about 14 months.

Keep in mind, both Little and Keating have to beat out incumbents, so at this point it is purely speculation.

An MLA who wins (maybe even runs) for a federal nomination has to resign. A law should be passed to make it the same for Councillors who run in a nomination for either MLA or MP.Keating has been nominated for an election could have been in October so he would not run for Council, the election will take place in May 2013 but Keating is likely to lose again but voters will know he is quite willing to jump ship in November.Little is only rumoured to be considering running in a potential nomination, one which Jane T will try to suppress like she and Jarvis did to get her appointed last time.

Jane said in the November 2008 election that she would not be running in the looming Provincial election. After serving as the School Board chair for only 5 months she was announced as the appointed BC Liberal candidate for North Van Seymour.

Quote of the day from the article above... "I can handle all sorts of balls in the air." --Jane

For Little to win, a couple of things will need to happen. One is that the governing Liberals decide that incumbents must go through a nomination process just like any other candidate and earn the right to run again. And if that doesn't come about, and the BC Conservatives continue their surge over the next 18 months, something I see as a real possibility, Little may see a better opportunity by running under their banner. Either way, he would make a much better MLA than the wingnut we have now. She may think she can keep balls in the air (whose?) but we don't need a juggler representing us in Victoria, do we?

No, not surprised just being sarcastic. Just like the health care system. Politicians claim it is a single tier system but indeed the system is also multi-tiered one for athletes, one for politicians, one for military, and one for the rest.

We're getting off topic here, but in response to the last post, given that criminals are accompanied to every hospital visit by a guard, I'd rather that they be treated immediately, not only because of the cost savings, but also to get them back behind bars ASAP.

Yeah, it's "wacko" to prioritize public services to those actually pay for them.

You're the perfect sheep that the politicians love to fleece.

I find those able to rationalize prioriting precious health care for prisoners while functional contributing innocent citizens have sufferred or even passed away in the long medical care waiting lines both wacko and terrifying.

I've never had to wait for health care because a prisoner jumped the line. Where are you getting your information? Show your sources please. Or is this more of that tea party crap where you heard it from a 'friend' so it must be true.

Lazy Anon 1:01pm. There are numerous websites citing various expert research into Canada's medical system.

The following is one example of many:

"The ‘system’ is not actually a single system at all. Medical service delivery is a provincial responsibility with 13 different systems (10 provinces and 3 territories), all with different coverage plans, accounting systems, management processes, licensing requirements and purchasing protocol. Little if anything is consistent from province to province or territory. Adding to the confusion are several other systems functioning within Canada. For example, the Worker’s Compensation Boards in most provinces utilize dedicated or private surgical facilities to expedite the return to work for workers injured on the job (and sometimes off the job as well). The military, RCMP, federal and provincial prisoners have their own systems or preferred access to the public system. In effect, the Canadian system is made up of 20-25 different systems each with its own rules and requirements."

The nice, well-intentioned centre left liberal type satisfied and trusting that the government is looking after his/her/our best interests. Hopelessly uninformed on the subject matter but believes with all his/her might that the other party is a tea-party wacko.

Meanwhile the centre right conservative type has made a decision based upon verifiable facts and opined in that light.

The liberal turns out to be either misinformed or uninformed and the self-righteous name caller appears silly.

Typical Canadian discourse. Whine and complain about the system we have, but offer no viable solutions. If the solution involves raising taxes, then there's even more whining and complaining. If there's a cut to services because no one wants to pay for them, the moaning really gets loud.

I say if you don't like our system (I know it isn't perfect, but it's what we've got), move to the USA and see how you like paying huge insurance premiums each month. I've been there and done that and it sucks.

Why do most insist on comparing to the U.S. health care system as a benchmark? European countries have been delivering health care in a mixed public/private system. Why not look a little further then the North American continent for solutions?

It’s like local government comparing themselves to other local government. The bar is so low to begin with what’s the point in comparing?

Disclaimer

Names, characters, places and incidents portrayed on this website are either products of the author’s imagination or have been used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual events or locales or persons, living or dead is entirely coincidental.